Judgment:
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(S)No.2979of2013 with I.A.No.4074of2013 UnionofIndiathroughtheRegionalDirector, EasternRegion,AtomicMineralsDirectoratefor ExplorationandResearch,Jamshedpur ... ... Petitioner Versus RamNathSingh ... ... Respondent CORAM :HON'BLETHEACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE :HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR ForthePetitioner :Md.MokhtarKhan,ASGI FortheRespondent : th 04/Dated:14 August,2013 PerD.N.Patel,A.C.J.
1. This petition has been preferred against the judgment and orderpassedbytheCentralAdministrativeTribunal,CircuitBench atRanchiinO.A.No.190of2012(R)dated22ndJanuary,2013.
2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondenthadpreferredanOriginalApplicationNo.190of2012(R) forgettinggratuity,commutationofpensionandleaveencashment, which were withheld without issuing any showcause notice or without initiation of any proceeding and the learned Central AdministrativeTribunalhadallowedtheOriginalApplicationbyorder dated22ndJanuary,2013.
3. CounselappearingfortheUnionofIndiamainlysubmittedthat a criminal proceeding is pending against the respondent and therefore,thepetitionerhadnotbeenpaidgratuity,commutationof pension,leaveencashmentetc.anduponenquiryraisedbytheCourt, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no misappropriation of any fund of Union of India nor there is any sabotageofpropertyoftheUnionofIndiabytherespondentnorany departmentalproceedingispending,but,aprivatecriminalcomplaint hasbeenfiledduetoafamilydisputeandtherefore,thisamounthas beenwithheldinpursuanceofRuleNo.69(1)(c)ofCentralCivil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Rule 39 (3) of Central Civil Services(Leave)Rules,1972. Itisfurthersubmittedbythecounsel forthepetitionerthatCentralAdministrativeTribunalhasdecidedthe OriginalApplicationoftherespondentwithoutanyopportunitygiven totheUnionofIndiatofilethereplyandtherefore,theimpugned orderdeservestobequashedandsetaside.
4. Havingheardthelearnedcounselforthepetitionerandlooking totheorderpassedbytheCentralAdministrativeTribunalinO.A.No. 190of2012(R)22ndJanuary,2013,itappearsthatnoerrorhasbeen committed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in allowing the Application preferred by therespondent and ingrantingthe retiral benefits.Lookingtothefactsofthecase,itappearsthatthecriminal complaint has been filed due to enmity between private individual whichhasnocausalconnectionwiththeUnionofIndia,norithas anyconnectionwithanyfundoftheUnionofIndiabeingmisusedby therespondent.Thereisnoallegationofthisnatureatalluponthe respondent. Applicanthasalreadysufferedsuspensionfor280days andhasnowretiredsince31stJuly,2010.
5. Rule69(1)(c)ofCentralCivilServices(Pension)Rules,1972 readsasunder: Rule69. Provisional Pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may bepending.(1)(a) In respect of a Governmentservantreferredtoinsubrule(4) ofRule9,theAccountsOfficershallauthorise theprovisionalpensionequaltothemaximum pensionwhichwouldhavebeenadmissibleon thebasisofqualifyingserviceuptothedateof retirementofthegovernmentservant,orifhe was under suspension on the date of retirement up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed undersuspension. (b) The provisional pension shall be authorisedbytheAccountsOfficerduringthe period commencing from the date of retirement up to and including the date on which,aftertheconclusionofdepartmentalor judicialproceedings,finalordersarepassedby thecompetentauthority. (c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Governmentservantuntiltheconclusionofthe departmentalorjudicialproceedingsandissue offinalorderthereon: Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 16oftheCentralCivilServices(Classification, ControlandAppeal)Rules,1965,forimposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i), (ii)and(iv)ofRule11ofthesaidRules,the paymentofgratuityshallbeauthorisedtobe paidtotheGovernmentservant: (2) Paymentofprovisionalpensionbymade under subrule (2) shall be adjusted against final retirement benefits sanctioned to such Governmentservant upon conclusionof such proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less thantheprovisionalpensionorthepensionis reducedorwithheldeitherpermanentlyorfor aspecifiedperiod.
26. Inviewoftheaforesaidprovisionandthefactthatthereisno departmentalproceedinginitiatedagainsttherespondent,neitherthe criminalproceedingshavebeeninitiatedbytheUnionofIndiaagainst therespondent,thisprovisioncannotbeinvoked.Thus,inabsenceof any civil or criminal proceedings initiated by the Union of India against the respondent, the gratuity, commutation of pension and leaveencashmentcannotbewithheldbytheUnionofIndiamerely becauseaprivateindividualhasfiledacriminalcasemoresowhen this respondent has already retired on 31st July, 2010. Moreover, nothing is found recoverable by the Union of India from the respondentnorthereisanypecuniarylosstotheUnionofIndiaby theactoromissionoftherespondent.
7. In view of these facts, no error has been committed by the CentralAdministrativeTribunalindecidingO.A.No.190of2012(R). Thereisnosubstanceinthiswritpetition,hence,itisdismissed. I.A.No.4074of2013 8. Asthewritpetitionisherebydismissed,I.A.No.4074of2013is alsodisposedof. (D.N.Patel,A.C.J.) (ShreeChandrashekhar,J.) Manish/Amit